So, we have a new policy:
I guess this is supposed to make NK and Iran want to play nice. Personally, I can’t see this working, and it seems like a meaningless gesture. Besides, the next president could easily reverse this decision. The best way to stop a US attack is to get nukes. The best way to gain the “respect” of other countries is to get nukes. Too much of advantage and it’s too easy to do.
Thoughts?
I agree with you assessment. Who exactly where we planning to nuke that we aren’t now? Oh yeah: no one.
Yeah, I don’t think this is going to do much. For one thing, what if he decides to break his promise? Who is going to bust his chops on it? For another, just because he promises it, doesn’t mean the next Prez is going to continue to go along. Finally, the US really doesn’t need nukes, to be honest. Conventionally the US could do more damage to either NK or Iran than they could possibly do with all the nukes at their disposal.
I disagree with you that the best way to stop a US attack is to get nukes. I think the best way to stop a US attack is to not butt heads with the US, and/or to be a good member of the international community, and/or to not be a regional bandit or rogue state. Belgium, for instance, is far less likely to get nuked by the US than, say, Iran…and afaik, they don’t have a large nuclear stockpile…
-XT
No, the best way to stop a nuclear attack from the US, per your cite. If the US were planning a nuclear attack it would now think harder about it. But really, the US is not in the business of “planning” a nuclear attack. (Yes, of course the military games out every scenario, and plans are devised for every possible contingency, etc. - you know what I mean.)
This has always been the belief, so no difference there.
I thought North Korea has already tested a nuke.
Obama has just returned to the original interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Most countries are signatories to this treaty; the exceptions are India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.
Under the terms of the treaty, only five countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
On the surface it seems unusual that 185 countries would sign a treaty that allows other countries to have nuclear weapons and prohibits them from having them. But the other half of the treaty is that the nuclear powers all agree not to use nuclear weapons against any signatory which does not have nuclear weapons (unless that country is fighting in alliance with a nuclear state). So most countries gave up developing nuclear wepaons in exchange for a promise not to be the target of nuclear weapons.
This policy changed in 1991. President Bush announced that the United States interpreted the treaty as allowing “weapons of mass destruction” to be used as a response to an attack which used weapons of mass destruction, with these being defined as biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. So nuclear weapons could be used in response to a biological or chemical weapons attack. This policy was directed against the possibility of Iraq using biological or chemical weapons against Americans during the Gulf War.
President Obama has announced he is essentially going back to the pre-1991 policy. The United States will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state that has signed and is in complaince with the NNPT. North Korea would be a valid target because it is a non-signatory and a nuclear power. Iran would be a valid target if it could be shown it was developing nuclear weapons and was therefore not in compliance with the terms of the treaty.
Yes, but presumably they could de-nuclearize (if that’s a word).
Where was that in my cite?
What I was referring to was the different way we treated NK and Iraq. Both were rogue states, both supposedly had WMDs, and clearly NK was a greater threat to the US than Iraq was. Well, we went into Iraq and not NK. One might argue NK doesn’t have oil, but they do have nukes (or a nuke).
Possession of nuclear weapons is a big deterrent. Why do you think Israel has them?
I think Obama’s being foolish. Does he really think that states will abide by the NPT? Of course not: they’ll quietly develop nuclear weapons if it suits them.
So?
Not much of an inducement if it doesn’t have staying power.
I think it’s a mistake to announce in advance what we will or will not do. Countries that want nukes are going to get them. Everyone knows we won’t use nukes except in a very extreme situation. NK and Iran don’t have, and won’t have, the capability or the will to attack us w/ conventional weapons.
Then in 60 years, why haven’t more countries gone nuclear? Only four have done so (not including S. Africa, which quickly disarmed when their program was discovered). And three of those were non-signatories to the treaty.
Perhaps because developing nukes is ungodly expensive, and most countries fall under the protection of one of the superpowers?
Perhaps I was exagerating a bit…
But it is a very good way to prevent an attack from the US, a very good way to get “respect” from your neighbors, and it can’t be that hard to do if NK can do it.
Also, I think you missed one. Israel, NK, Pakistan and India (besides SA).
They’re being asked to trust us a lot more than we’re trusting them. We can retarget a nuclear weapon with an hour’s notice. Building nuclear weapons takes years.
Maintaining them is hellapricey, too. Plutonium’s corrosive. A serious nuclear program isn’t a one-shot expense.
I thought NK’s bomb was largely considered a dud. ?
That was the 2006 test. The one I linked to was in 2009, and was considered successful by most analysts.
Well, that’s why we need things like the NPT. There’s nothing we can do to absolutely stop countries who are bound and determined to build nukes short of invading them all. But we can increase the pain of building one by an international system of carrots and sticks, like that provided by the NPT.
And its a system that’s largely been successful. As you say, one would expect the rational thing for smaller countries to do is build nukes as quickly as they can, even despite their huge expense, they’re still the best bang for a small countries defense buck. Far better then investing in, say, a third string air-force that will get blown away in the first eight minutes of a war with a modern military power.
But by-and-large, nukes haven’t proliferated, and the reason is that the admittedly imperfect international non-proliferation regime has made building a nuke by a signatory of the NPT a one-way trip to international pariah-ville. NK’s and Iran’s nuclear program, for example, have undoubtedly cost them far more in sanctions then they have in actual money spent building nuclear technology.
Err…that’s 4. Three NPT non-signatories and one ex-signatory (NK), like I said.
All other issues aside, I simply can’t agree with vowing no nuclear retaliation against chemical or biological attacks by non-nuclear countries. I have to imagine that the thinking behind it is to keep countries with C/BW weapons already from thinking “well, we’re already a valid target already, 'might as well go nuclear anyway,” but I can’t help but thinking it’d end up more like “what, we’re already being attacked by the US [in whatever hypothetical future war], how much worse is the ‘massive conventional attack’ going to get? Might as well fire off the mustard gas. It’s a force multiplier, and it might horrify the enemy’s population into demanding they cut and run.”
The cynic in me thinks what happened was that we were willing to comply with the treaty we signed right up until the first time we felt like doing otherwise. We basically announced we were changing the rules in our favor in the middle of the game. We got away with it because nobody in 1991 was in a position to call us on it.
Biological and chemical weapons existed in 1970 when the treaty was drafted. If we felt their use should be included in the terms of the treaty we had the opportunity to raise the issue. We didn’t and we signed the treaty as it was written.